GOP Women’s Group President: Obama’s Image Will Be on Food Stamps

by Latoya Peterson

Yeah, that about says it all.

From the California based paper, the Press Enterprise:

The latest newsletter by an Inland Republican women’s group depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles.

The October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated says if Obama is elected his image will appear on food stamps — instead of dollar bills like other presidents. The statement is followed by an illustration of “Obama Bucks” — a phony $10 bill featuring Obama’s face on a donkey’s body, labeled “United States Food Stamps.”

Now, normally, something like that would just make me shake my head in disgust. But actually, the next reported paragraph made me smile.

The GOP newsletter, which was sent to about 200 members and associates of the group by e-mail and regular mail last week, is drawing harsh criticism from members of the political group, elected leaders, party officials and others as racist.

Thank you, members. Call things what they are. This is racist. But of course, the publisher of the newsletter doesn’t see it that way at all:

The group’s president, Diane Fedele, said she plans to send an apology letter to her members and to apologize at the club’s meeting next week. She said she simply wanted to deride a comment Obama made over the summer about how as an African-American he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

“It was strictly an attempt to point out the outrageousness of his statement. I really don’t want to go into it any further,” Fedele said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “I absolutely apologize to anyone who was offended. That clearly wasn’t my attempt.”

Fedele said she got the illustration in a number of chain e-mails and decided to reprint it for her members in the Trumpeter newsletter because she was offended that Obama would draw attention to his own race. She declined to say who sent her the e-mails with the illustration.

Did you catch that? She was offended Obama would draw attention to his own race, so she decided to reprint a racist illustration. And how dare he state the obvious? The nerve of him!

Oh, wait, and she has a black friend:

She said she doesn’t think in racist terms, pointing out she once supported Republican Alan Keyes, an African-American who previously ran for president.

She also claims to be ignorant of one of the most well known stereotypes in US History:

“I didn’t see it the way that it’s being taken. I never connected,” she said. “It was just food to me. It didn’t mean anything else.”

She said she also wasn’t trying to make a statement linking Obama and food stamps, although her introductory text to the illustration connects the two: “Obama talks about all those presidents that got their names on bills. If elected, what bill would he be on????? Food Stamps, what else!”

The rest of the article focuses on the reactions of members of the group.

Sheila Raines, an African-American member of the club, was the first person to complain to Fedele about the newsletter. Raines, of San Bernardino, said she has worked hard to try to convince other minorities to join the Republican Party and now she feels betrayed.

“This is what keeps African-Americans from joining the Republican Party,” she said. “I’m really hurt. I cried for 45 minutes.”

How right you are, Sheila. More and more African American youth are distancing ourselves from the Democratic Party, preferring to stay politically independent. And for many nonwhites in general, we can find parts of the Republican party that hold appeal – being fiscally conservative for some, and being socially conservative for others. And yet, we stay away. This isn’t rocket science.

Acquanetta Warren, a Fontana councilwoman and member of the women’s group, said the item is rude and requires a public apology.

“When I opened that up and saw it, I said, ‘Why did they do this? It doesn’t even reflect our principles and values,’ ” said Warren, who served as a Republican delegate to the national convention in September and is a regional vice chairwoman for the California Republican Party. “I know a lot of the ladies in that club and they’re fantastic. They’re volunteers. They really care — some of them go to my church.”

Warren forwarded an electronic version of the newsletter to the California Republican Party headquarters, where officials also were outraged Wednesday and denounced the illustration.

The Republican party seems to be having a crisis. Somehow, I missed Christopher Buckley’s amazing post “Sorry Dad, I’m Voting for Obama.

(Aside: I cannot express how happy this makes me. Not that Buckley is voting for Obama, though that is a perk. I am a *huge* fan of Buckley’s fiction and it has always shocked me how he is able to lampoon Washington so well, yet say things like “one of my greatest pleasures is voting Republican.” His disillusionment with his own party started kind of early – this is just the final nail in the coffin.)

Andrew Sullivan
expressed similar sentiments.

It just appears that the nation is in a state of political upheaval.

Against this backdrop, it does not surprise me at all that we’re seeing increasingly charged racial incidents and denials of the meaning of those incident. Change is happening, right around us, right at this very moment. And no one said it would be easy.

But it is coming.

Which is why I have to smile at this article. It appears the tide has shifted within the ranks of the GOP, and the tactic of quietly (or overtly) appealing to the racist voter block will soon be an unworkable strategy.

And it won’t be because the world suddenly became less racist.

It will be because people are finally standing up, and calling things for what they are.


Thanks Fatemeh, for sending this in!


(Image credit: The Press Enterprise
)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Uptown Notes - Racist! Says Who? on 17 Oct 2008 at 11:25 am

    [...] thought it was bad enough when I the good folks over at Racialicious alerted me to this image which appeared in a GOP newsletter [...]

  2. We’re So Post-Racial [Presidential Racism Watch] at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 05 Mar 2009 at 12:00 pm

    [...] second entry, which was predictable considering the ribs and watermelon newsletter, is a picture of what? Watermelons at the White [...]

Comments

  1. Rob wrote:

    Reminds me why all my Republican friends are voting Obama. It’s not because he’s better, it’s because he’s less dumb.

  2. KuriusJurge612 wrote:

    Not surprised Check this article out Latoya Named………………………………………..
    “National Review Writer: Obama Likely Would Have Been Aborted, Had It Been Legal”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/national-review-writer-ob_n_135501.html

  3. jmn wrote:

    I’m not surprised that hatemongers are circulating such crap. What surprises me (in a good way) is the negative reaction to that image coming from members of the Republican party. Or is it because they would rather stick to their code words like “not one of us” or “foreign” because they don’t want to seem overtly racist?

  4. Kjen wrote:

    Reading about the newsletter, my usual frustration at such incidents started to rise. I use to be in the camp that all such forms of racist expressions should be surpressed, but you can’t change what you don’t speak of. I think hearing such blatant stereotypes can help people make their own stand on racial issues, where when racial biases are more subtle, many people will try to explain it away. I get a kick out of hearing about how many people, members of the Republican party no less, who are truly outraged gives me hope that while such thoughts and sentiments do still exist, they are not the majority and people will speak out against them.

  5. Tariq Nelson wrote:

    How right you are, Sheila. More and more African American youth are distancing ourselves from the Democratic Party, preferring to stay politically independent. And for many nonwhites in general, we can find parts of the Republican party that hold appeal – being fiscally conservative for some, and being socially conservative for others. And yet, we stay away. This isn’t rocket science.

    I could not agree more. One of the main reasons that black Conservatives have no credibility in the discourse of the black community is that many of their prominent voices say silly things.

    Case in point was the black guy in Wisconsin “begging” McCain to RACE BAIT in the final debate. Another example is Walter Williams’ insistence that slavery was actually good for black Americans in the long term. Others have even gone as far as to deny the existence of racism. Sean Hannity regular trots out a black conservative that says that there is nothing wrong with whites using the ‘n-word’ and defended Michael Richards.

    When people say buffoonish crap like that, no one will want to hear the good ideas that come from their circles.

    They do themselves no favors in trying to gain non-white support with incidents like the above

  6. Tony wrote:

    I just love the whole “I had no idea” thing

    Yeah, she just randomly picked Watermelon, Ribs, Fried Chicken and Kool Aid.

    You know, I really HATE to give racists advice, but if you’re going to try to pull the “I had no idea” defense, you should probably toss in some foods that AREN’T stereotypically associated with the race.

    Somehow I doubt if I were to write down a list of every food I know of, and picked 4 at random, all 4 could be associated with any particular race.

  7. Arturo wrote:

    I’m so glad you posted this story — and I’m especially glad the P-E reported it. There was also a report that the Sacramento County GOP was encouraging people to “waterboard” Obama.

    And in Ohio, Al-Jazeera caught some of the most frighteningly candid viewpoints from Sarah Palin supporters, including, “I’m afraid if he wins, the blacks will take over. He’s not a Christian! This is a Christian nation! What is our country gonna end up like?”

  8. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ Kjen

    Co-sign – I know that a lot of my political consciousness came from seeing overt forms of hatred within subcultures and places that I had previously identified with. That bit about Raines crying for 45 minutes resonated with me. It’s a very painful experience, but there’s usually always a community on the other side waiting to welcome you into their fold, once you get over the loss.

  9. KuriusJurge612 wrote:

    So……she didn’t know about the Stereotypes but she decided to put KFC, Ribs, Koolaid, and Watermelon on a food stamp-not even a dollar bill. I don’t know what’s; dumber that fact that she did that or that she thought people would buy her Bullshit that she didn’t really know what she was doing.

  10. gatamala wrote:

    *fist jab to LP*

    *grabs Sheila’s collar and backhands her Airplane style*

    Get a hold of yourself woman!

    I am truly loving the implosion.

    I love Chris Buckley too (talk about someone who may get shot). David Brooks (!!!) referred to Sarah Palin as a cancer!!!

    This is a classic example of the accusation being the insult and the actual racism being a non-issue.

  11. Winn wrote:

    I’m more amused by her insistence that this racist crap was prompted by the “outrageousness” of Obama pointing out that he didn’t look like those other founding fathers on our currency. What exactly is “outrageous” about that? And if Obama, whom people from her own party continue to insist they just don’t know or understand or trust, can’t draw attention to his own very obvious identity and personal narrative, particularly when it has been a focus of this campaign, both positively and negatively, what would she prefer? For Obama to pretend that his nomination and candidacy is not unprecedented, that his personal history doesn’t diverge sharply from the political hegemony of this country, that there aren’t people out there who care about nothing he says or stands for but only what he looks like? That she thought anyone would think there was a shred of truth in her denials is what is outrageous. And invoking Alan Keyes to display your non-racist bona fides? Not only is the woman a racist, she’s an extraordinarily stupid one.

  12. Fatemeh wrote:

    No problem, Latoya. Great piece!!!

  13. Renee wrote:

    Is it any wonder that McCain’s own black relatives are voting republican. Yes despite his denial and his obvious racist campaign there is a black wing of the McCain party.

  14. waxghost wrote:

    I’m sure this will be an unpopular view because there is no way to say this without it sounding like I am defending her but doesn’t it say that she didn’t actually create this herself, just chose to use it? And I do believe that she might not have known those stereotypes; I didn’t know of them until I was 24. Like the area that I grew up in, there are areas of California with more Asian-Americans and Latinos than African-Americans, so it is possible that she was ignorant of this particular racist association.

    Not that ignorance excuses this at all, because it doesn’t. It is still appalling.

    But I haven’t seen anyone mention the aspect of this that really stood out to me: the association of a black person with food stamps. I suppose one could say that it’s reflective of the stereotype that Democrats want everyone to be on entitlement programs, but I saw it as a classist and racist attack on Obama himself and black people in general. Am I alone in this?

  15. Jess wrote:

    The split a lot of folks are seeing within the GOP is actually not all that new.

    Back when Nixon ran (the second time) he knew what he needed to do to make the South vote GOP — the famous “Southern Strategy.” He said “Unhappy with the Civil Rights Act? Vote GOP!” and every Republican candidate ran with it, right up through George (W) Bush. In fat, the success of the GOP in the 90s was a direct end-result.

    A lot of folks don’t remember that the Northeast was once solidly Republican, as was California. The reversal of that pattern was one of the hugest shifts in American electoral politics.

    But that wasn’t the whole story. There was a big chunk of the GOP that wasn’t having it. These were the people who saw the Republicans as the party of Lincoln, as the party of Teddy Roosevelt. They’re usually called “Rockefeller Republicans” and I know it’s going to be hard for people under 40 to believe, but they supported stuff like abortion rights as often as Democrats, if not more so.

    (New York was one of the few states where abortions were legal pre-Roe, and it was Nelson Rockefeller who signed into law the most liberal abortion laws in the nation at the time in 1970, offering the kid of protection we now see as a basic right).

    Now, all those moderate and liberal Republicans have been marginalized for a long time. Barry Goldwater was in that sense successful. It’s no accident that the powerhouses of the GOP for the last 30 years have almost always been Southerners or people from the West. Newt Gingrich was one example. John McCain is another. Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, et cetera.

    But demographic changes caught up with them.

    More people started moving down from the North. (Take a look at the period when the South’s electoral influence started to rise). More people started getting college educations. The kinds of jobs the South had to offer changed — it wasn’t just farming and extractive industries anymore. Those new migrants brought their more-liberal attitudes with them.

    And let’s not forget the great reverse migration of the last couple of decades as black people started going back South. A lot of those people were also better educated professionals, and with better education and more money comes a lot more political involvement.

    Then there were the immigrants. As a consequence of creating all those jobs, and opening up all those universities, states such as North Carolina got a huge influx of people who weren’t buying the GOP race attacks anymore. The Latino population, which was previously limited to Texas, spread all over the old Confederacy.

    With all that happening, the Southern Strategy Republicans suddenly found themselves surrounded by people who might be with them on social issues, but couldn’t stand the racism.

    (I always get told by non-white voters, “Damn, we’d vote for them if they weren’t such racists.”)

    On top of that, the old Dixiecrat voters were getting old. A lot of them are dead. The number of white people with fond memories of segregation is smaller than it was and getting smaller every day. (Do you all realize the youngest person who can remember legalized segregation is 41? And the Brown decision is 54 years old? All those teenagers you see in the pictures spitting on black kids going to school are retirees now)

    Eventually something had to give. I think this means that the moderate wing of the Republicans — people like Lincoln Chafee, for instance — might once again take the reins of the party. That would be an interesting political realignment — I’d guess you’d see something that was a little more akin to the late 40s or early 50s, without the virulent racism of the Dixiecrats. Of course, the party could go the other direction and embrace the far-right nut jobs and the Patriot movement. But I think the leadership is smarter than that.

    This story is a classic example of a Southern Strategy Republican finding herself in that position. Well, big oops there, I think.

  16. Eva wrote:

    I love how all of this nonsense is forcing this country to look at race. Too many people like to think we’ve gone past race but in reality we’ve never had the discussion. Now is the time for the discussion.

  17. Big Man wrote:

    I wrote about this over at my blog, but I was more amused by the black women who seemed so shocked. Seriously, these women saw no signs that there were problems in their group before this? That’s very unbelievable.

  18. Lauren O wrote:

    It was just food to me. It didn’t mean anything else.

    Right, because people normally put random pictures of food on images of money.

  19. Erin wrote:

    (I think it must be one of the signs of the apocalypse that I find myself agreeing with Andrew Sullivan lately – frequently his views are far too conservative for me. )

    Total b.s. that she didn’t know about the racist food associations. One can’t grow up in America in the past 100 years and NOT be aware of those stereotypes. Maybe if you live under a rock…which now that I mention it does seem like a likely place for this lady.

    She should step down or the group should force her to step down.

  20. Westerly wrote:

    I hate the whiny retreat behind supposed ignorance, which is supposed to pass as ‘innocence.’ She’s so unwitting and unknowing yet she gets to be in a position of authority?

    “I absolutely apologize to anyone who was offended. That clearly wasn’t my attempt.”

    Please. Why not just take responsibility and be an unapologetic racist?

    @ Winn. I agree. It’s a worry though pointing out your own race is such a criminal offence that deserves to be answered with crude, racist caricature.

  21. Elena Perez wrote:

    It seems like her attitude was, “How dare he imply that some of us might be influenced by race?! I will send out a racist image to show how silly that is!”

    What is with the Republican Party in California recently? First the “Waterboard Obama” bit from Sacramento and now this.

    California NOW did a piece on it, “The Face of California Republicans”: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/10/the-face-of-cal.html

  22. Chelita wrote:

    Waxhhost, I think you are the only one on this forum who will defend her. She is an educated woman. She knew every bit of what she was doing. She did not think for one moment that she would get the backlash that she had gotten especially from the people within her own circle. I’m sure if an Asian or Hispanic man was running, she would have posted sterotypical pictures of their culture on a food stamp also. Don’t buy into her innocent role. She’s racist. That’s all it is to it.

  23. Emmeaki wrote:

    I don’t know if I’m allowed to use the “C-Word” here to describe Ms. Fedele, so I will refrain. I’d rather someone call me a nigger to my face than to do racist things then pretend that they didn’t realize it was racist.

    I don’t buy Waxghost’s ideal that she really may not have know about the stereotypes. There is no way I can believe that a woman in her position would not know. (And I’m sure she is a lot older than 24).

    A fake apology is bad enough, but playing dumb is adding insult to injury.

  24. ch555x wrote:

    Those upper-crusted repubs must not partake in the delicacies of fried chicken, watermelon, ribs, or kool-aid though my GOP-leaning area of eastern TN would probably render that notion null and void. I guess that’s why those stereotypes fall flat though this could just mean a simple class-war tactic, hence my reference to east TN…go figure!

  25. CVT wrote:

    I can’t help but point out that the only references to the race of a person mentioned in the article are to Obama and the “African-American member of the club.” Even in an article pointing out a racist act, we still can’t get away from the “normalization” of whiteness.

  26. Renee wrote:

    What bothers me the most is that this kind of thing keeps happening and then we get the false apologies. Saying sorry after doing something this racist just does not cut it. I am sick of the line if I offended you I am sorry. What is with the If…seriously. I am so done with this.

  27. Yvette wrote:

    waxghost, yes the article mentions that this already-created image was something she received and repackaged. That, to me, actually makes her action *more* and not less defensible. Who in their right mind passes along nonsense they receive in email chain letters, etc in official newsletters?

    As for not knowing that the images were racist: I assume from TV reports showing her adult daughter that this woman is much older than 24 (the age you say you were when you first became aware of the baggage associated with these images). I do not believe for one second that she believed these depictions to be “just food.”

    And yes–as in the case of the focus in the Michael Richards incident on the n-word rather than the lynching–it is troubling that so much focus has been on the food images and not the juxtaposition of Sen Obama and food stamps.

    Big Man: I agree that I was more angry at the Black member who reported they “cried for 45 minutes.” I would love to hear more from her about why she felt drawn to this group in the first place.

    As for the “apology”: Such non-apologies seem to be standard operating procedure now. I am sick of them. I wish folks would just be unrepentant.

  28. ohio wrote:

    Re: “parts of the Republican party that hold appeal – being fiscally conservative for some, being socially conservative for others…”

    I realize that you and most racialicious readers are aware of this, but, for the record, a reminder: the Republican Party has not been either fiscally conservative since at least 1980, when they began the spending spree that is now helping to nearly bankrupt our country, or fiscally helpful to the country, well, ever. Our economy is stronger AND more equal under Democrats.

    And, frankly, I think it’s simply naive for anyone to think that conservativism on “social issues” can be readily disentangled, here, from a desire to conserve and return to the “idyllic” 1950s Jim-Crow status quo. Even controlling women’s sexuality, one of the hallmarks of social conservativism, has always been utterly entangled with racist assumptions in this country.

    There is no good reason for a thinking person of any color to be a member of the Republican party.

  29. bug_girl wrote:

    That is so over the top. Damn.

    I hope someone from the companies whose trademarked materials she used in a racist context will also get in touch with that woman …. :p

  30. Marcus Kwame wrote:

    Let me preface my response by saying that I believe in civilized discourse and don’t believe in handling most situations with violence… I am an educated, intelligent brother…

    That being said, that image makes me want to knock someone the hell out.

  31. allheavens wrote:

    She cried for 45 minutes because she got called on her racist bullshit.

    I do not have one iota of sympathy for this woman. She should be shunned.

    But when Obama is elected (God willing) we will have four years of this shit to deal with.

    Check out his below, now this REALLY got my attention.

    http://gawker.com/5062489/obama-noose-poster-new-low-in-citizen-propaganda

  32. Amy wrote:

    1. As a white republican, I’m terribly offended by the image. Of course, I am. It’s repulsive.

    That said, I see some confusion in the comments.

    Tony & KuriusJurge612, you suggest that Fedele created the image and therefore chose those foods on purpose. She didn’t create the image. She received it by email from someone else.

    Erin, you assume it’s impossible that Fedele didn’t know about the racist implications behind the foods. I would actually agree with you… if I didn’t just recently have to explain this to someone. That’s right, I couldn’t believe it either. But my otherwise intelligent, educated friend just didn’t know about the stereotypes associated with these foods. That probably has a lot to do with where she grew up. I don’t know.

    None of that was said in defense of Ms. Fedele. Her actions and excuses are ridiculous. I just wanted to set the record straight.

  33. Princess wrote:

    With less than three full weeks to go before election day the plot thickens and I’m not surprised.

    When I first saw “Obama Bucks” — a phony $10 bill featuring Obama’s face on a donkey’s body, labeled “United States Food Stamps”, I thought there appears to be no cut-off point to how low some persons are willing to go.

    Yes, Fedele intentionally reprinted this very offensive racial illustration sent to her via email, decided to include it in a newsletter for her members and distrubuted it. The operative word here is “decided”. She decided it was the right thing to do.

    As for Raines, an African-American member of the club who claims she cried for 45 minutes after speaking with Fedele. Raines feelings were possibly hurt because she now feels she’s not truly accepted as a member of this club and merely assumed she was for many years.

    Fortunately, many are aware of the actual demographic that assistance, in the form of welfare and food stamps/cards has historically benefited. Also, with the economy the way it is, there are many families of various races, ethnicities and backgrounds currently receiving public aid. Families that have lost income, healthcare benefits, money in stocks, 401k plans and even a place to call home are also being mocked and belittled by this foolishness.

    With that said, Fedele and the other persons who decided to circulate this negative illustration intended to target Obama and mainly African-Americans, yet with lack of knowledge they’ve also targeted Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, and many others as well.

  34. DollyAnn wrote:

    Amy, I can’t believe that you would suggest that someone living in this century in this culture in this country could see watermelon, KFC chicken, ribs, OR Kool-Aid next to a black person and not pick up on the explicit negative stereotypes. I mean, even if she was only 1 for 4, she should have noticed. Nobody lives in a vacuum and defending her on the grounds that you just explained this to someone else is rather silly. Frankly, I don’t see how California is fenced off from the world of racial stereotypes.

  35. waxghost wrote:

    Chelita, I am not interested in defending Fedele at all. I don’t think there is any way to defend it, and I agree with you that she is racist. The two issues I mentioned don’t change that at all.

    Emmeaki and Yvette, I think I’m making a distinction where perhaps I shouldn’t be – the distinction between pure ignorance and blatant racism. Both are, I’m sure you know, racism in their own way, but now that you’ve made me think about it more, I see that that distinction may not be as important (or cleancut) as I thought it was.

    Yvette, as to your first paragraph, I agree completely. Just the fact that she wouldn’t even think about why those particular foods were chosen is a huge red flag, though in my own defense, I tend to think that most Republicans are seriously lacking in the questioning-of-the-way-things-are department.

  36. browne wrote:

    ” I grew up in, there are areas of California with more Asian-Americans and Latinos than African-Americans, so it is possible that she was ignorant of this particular racist association.” Wax Ghost

    No, I don’t agree. I grew up in LA. And even in the San Gabriel valley where I went to school in San Marino stereotypes about black people were well known.

    I went to a Chinese restaurant. Everyone was Chinese, everyone was speaking Chinese and this little old woman who owned the restaurant came up to me. She was insistent that I try her fried chicken, because she said her friend chicken was better than black people’s. She was quite proud of it. This in my opinion was not a racist action by her (prejudice) but an old lady action, because I could see an old lady of any race who was proud of her cooking a particular dish doing this exact thing, so not a slam on this woman, but it did demonstrate to me that even in enclaves where there are no black people, people are aware of black stereotypes.

    I didn’t eat the chicken, since I am vegetarian, but I have to say I was tempted it did look good.

  37. Leslie wrote:

    It’s not even a fair race with the way McCain and the Republican party is shooting themselves in the foot every other day. I mean, EVERY DAY there is some silly nonsense that validates my vote for Obama. LOLOLOL, sad. . . . .

  38. Amy wrote:

    DollyAnn,

    First of all, let me please clarify. I was not defending Fedele. I’ve never been to California, but I assume most people there are very aware of racial stereotypes.

    The point I was attempting to make is that there are people in America who are not aware of these negative stereotypes.

    I had the misfortune of growing up in a predominately white, rural area. Of course there were some racists… but I was protected from them. I was raised to hate racism and I had such little tolerance for it that no one dared to spew their negative stereotypes in my direction. Living in the country, I didn’t have regular access to television. Admittedly, I grew up in a different America than some.

    When I moved 600 miles away for college, I unknowingly moved to yet another predominately white area. Thankfully that’s changing. I don’t want my children to grow up with only people that look like them.

    At age 18, if someone said “fried chicken, ribs and watermelon” to me I would have thought “Awesome, we’re having a church picnic” not “racist stereotype.”

    In fact, I didn’t become aware of this stereotype until I read it in the back of a book in a journalism class. That was 13 years ago. Of course I’ve heard it a lot since then. Not from anyone in person, but from the media.

    I realize it’s hard to believe. But there are people out there who just haven’t been exposed to all the negative stereotypes most people have fought all their lives.

    I’ll freely admit that until yesterday, I seriously had no idea Kool-Aid held any racial connotation…

    However:
    Let me close in saying once again, I’m not defending Fedele.

  39. FranSky wrote:

    “…she was offended that Obama would draw attention to his own race.”

    Umm… a WOMENS group, clearly drawing attention to their own gender, their own minority stautus, has a president angry about Obama articulating his own minority status.

    I’m so sick of people today.
    ~F

  40. Witchsistah wrote:

    As for Raines, an African-American member of the club who claims she cried for 45 minutes after speaking with Fedele. Raines feelings were possibly hurt because she now feels she’s not truly accepted as a member of this club and merely assumed she was for many years.

    When I read that, I didn’t know whether or not to offer her a “there, there now” and a comforting pat on the back or to stand there, point at her and laugh my Black ass off. Hmmm. I’mma hafta go with MOCKERY here.

  41. Spinster wrote:

    “I didn’t see it the way that it’s being taken. I never connected,” she said. “It was just food to me. It didn’t mean anything else.”

    So she just HAPPENED to put foods on the stamp which are stereotyped as being things that Black folks eat? There’s no vegetables on there.

    She’s full of utter and pure unadulterated bullshit.

  42. Spinster wrote:

    Forgot to mention – her “apology” wasn’t an apology. She’s basically “apologizing” for offending people, but she’s not apologizing for what she said. She knows damn well that she still stands by what she did.

    “I absolutely apologize to anyone who was offended. That clearly wasn’t my attempt.”

    VERSUS

    “I apologize for what I said. I now understand the implications of what I said and did and will educate myself further to ensure that things like this are not tolerated within the Republican party.”

    Which one sounds a bit more authentic?

  43. Tim wrote:

    In response to ohio and fiscal responsibility. It was the republicans in the 90’s that fixed the budget and showed fiscal responsibility, not the democrats. Remember something called the “Contract with America”. Democrats since Carter have had the tax and spend mentality while republicans tend to cut budgets and try to shrink government allowing people to choose for themselves how they should spend their own money. Either you’ve not studied your history and are repeating blogs or you are a revisionist that wants to reinvent history.

  44. William wrote:

    Are you going to post something about Colin Powell’s endorsement?

  45. Jess wrote:

    Not to go for a thread hijacking here, but Tim, you are aware that under Reagan was when deficits bloomed? (Largely because of a huge military buildup?) The GOP has been for cutting budgets, sure — unless it was to either the military or their favorite industrial subsidies. Not that Democrats can claim holier-than-thou on that, but at least they understand that the return on investment when incomes are relatively evenly distributed is higher than when they are not.

    For instance, opening up the opportunity to go to college to more people means more people are in a position to get good jobs. When you invest in things like public transit, you allow more people to get to those jobs without the added cost of owning a car. (I don’t need one, for instance, and it saves me thousands that I can spend on other stuff, stimulating the local economy instead of sinking money into a depreciating asset).

    Income redistribution doesn’t mean taking your money away and dropping it out of a plane and ‘giving it away’ — it means having the conditions in place that allow for opportunities for more people.

    That all by itself makes issues of race much easier to deal with, because then you aren’t dealing with quite so many inequalities of power that go with having a skewed income distribution.

  46. kerrita k wrote:

    yet another reason why i called for move on.org today. normally not my thing at all – but this race has scared the crap outta me. well. at least i know who my friends are (n’t). i would pay real money to be a fly on the wall at that next women’s meeting!

  47. browne wrote:

    @43 Tim
    Republicans are in to shrinking the gov’t and letting people decide for themselves? Well that’s very interesting, how about explaining the almost trillion dollars (with no conditions) we’re giving to banks. How about the 85 billion being given to AIG (which they promptly partied on)? That doesn’t look very free market to me.

    Browne

  48. Tim wrote:

    Jess, what some people don’t understand about military spending under Reagan is that there was a cold war going on. That war was won by outspending the USSR and forcing them to try to keep up which led to their demise. It was then under a republican president (Bush Sr.) when the military began it’s downsizing. I was in the Marine Corps during the first round of base closures. The base closures didn’t make anybody very happy, especially when two of the best bases to which I could be assigned were closed, Tustin and El Toro : ) The biggest problem with the current Bush administration is that he is too much of a centrist in some respects, spending is one of them.
    Another peice of history that people want to ignore is that during the second term of the Clinton administration retired people suffered up to 50% losses in their retirement accounts due to the dot com bust. That little bombshell hit us in the spring of 2000. We can call that a lesson NOT learned, the dot com industry was a pyramid scheme that needed someone to step in and at least take a look at trading practices which could have been interpreted as violating then current laws. Like the mortgage crisis we now face nobody wanted to see the 800 lb. gorilla in the room because people who shouldn’t have been given loans were now in the home ownership is up category.

  49. Chris wrote:

    @Tim: I don’t see how people can claim that the current administration, as well as the majority Republican congress from 2000-2006, have exercised anything less than fiscially irresponsible, tax-and-spend policies.

    The difference is in who’s being taxed and where those tax dollars are spent. Instead of everyone being taxed an equal percentage, and those tax dollars being funneled into social welfare programs, large corporations and the immensely wealthy are taxed less and more dollars are going to fund a war, where large amounts of money are being used to fund large private corporations.

    In essence, the difference between the Democrats’ tax-and-spend and the neo-conservative Republicans’ tax-and-spend policies are that, in the former, those tax dollars are being spent on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, whereas tax dollars and tax relief is mostly spread amongst the highest rungs in the latter.

    As far at the 800 lb. gorilla that is the group of people who “shouldn’t have been given loans,” it takes two to tango. You can’t necessarily blame low-income families for trying to snatch a slice of the American dream when mortage companies are dangling sub-prime ARMs in their faces.

    Even if the conservative pundits are correct in assuming this entire meltdown is because of the Democrats’ insistence on mortage giants offering loans to low-income and minority groups for fear of audits, you can’t necessarily lay all the blame on one group alone. Mortage companies still chose to offer a tremendous amount of mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them.

    It’s what investors do: they take risks, and make risky investments. The higher the risk, the greater the reward.

    Let’s also not forget that the original suspect at the outset of this whole ordeal (back when McCain was still touting the strength of our economy’s fundamentals) was rising food and fuel costs, which were to blame for putting the additional pinch on homeowners. Nobody from the Republican camp, that I knew, gave two shits about people losing their homes, often shrugging it off as people making digging their own graves and having to lie in them. It wasn’t until a giant wave of homeowners were defaulting on their mortgages left and right — and taking down these large mortgage giants with them — that the Republicans started to take notice.

    What was to blame for the rising oil costs back during the summer months? Speculation and oil futures trading. What deregulated futures trading at the beginning of this century? The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Written by Phil Gramm, who claimed America was a “nation of whiners” during the whole oil and food price inflation stint back in mid-summer, who also happens to be McCain’s economic adviser.

    So, while Republicans may claim to be fiscially responsible, they deregulate industries, allow corporations to abuse tax loopholes, and give enormous tax breaks to the tremendously rich (and yes… $250k a year is tremendously rich compared to the average $40-60k salary of mose Americans. That is… unless you think someone making 4-5 times more than the average American isn’t rich) in an effort to pass the buck by having the “haves” take care of the “have-nots.”

    All this in addition to funding wars fought and managed by private entities whose employees make a paltry $100k a year to do the job of a soldier who makes less than half of that.

    This doesn’t work out, however, because you cannot be fiscially responsible and cut taxes while you’re funding a war that costs billions of dollars a year. Who’s gonna foot the bill?

    You cannot claim your economic policies are sound when you give tax breaks to corporations and investment firms who pay their CEOs multi-million dollar salaries, who create jobs abroad at the expense of Americans domestically, who have not lowered prices of their products accordingly (real wages had declined since the Bush Tax Cuts went into place in 2000), and who take huge risks where profit is distributed privately and loss is handled at the taxpayers’ expense.

    Again, who’s footing the bill? My guess is it’s not the CEOs and investment firm managers and the heads of insurance companies and the banks who’ve done absolutely nothing in regards to letting their economic successes “trickle down” to us middle and low-class American citizens. It’s the other 95% of Americans who are fighting in these wars — both in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in our pocketbooks in the face of rising costs of damn near everything while trying to keep our heads above water — that are footing the bill for the irresponsible behavior of the filthy rich and our dirty politicians alike.

    Besides, if the root causes of this economic meltdown really are the shifty poor people who wanted to own their own homes by taking out loans they couldn’t afford and liberal fiscially irresponsible tax-and-spend Democrats, wouldn’t you think the Republicans would’ve had the foresight to put a stop to this trainwreck-in-progress during the entire 6 years they’ve had control of all 3 branches of the federal government?

    Just something to think about.

  50. gatamala wrote:

    Then there were the immigrants. As a consequence of creating all those jobs, and opening up all those universities, states such as North Carolina got a huge influx of people who weren’t buying the GOP race attacks anymore. The Latino population, which was previously limited to Texas, spread all over the old Confederacy.

    With all that happening, the Southern Strategy Republicans suddenly found themselves surrounded by people who might be with them on social issues, but couldn’t stand the racism.

    (I always get told by non-white voters, “Damn, we’d vote for them if they weren’t such racists.”)

    On top of that, the old Dixiecrat voters were getting old. A lot of them are dead.

    Jess~ that is an apt description of my hometown Raleigh. You have “dont tax me GOPers” who are not comfortable with the rural racists. They are vastly more educated and as transplants, have moved somewhere.

    I don’t know how it will go, but I’m very proud.

  51. Kaonashi wrote:

    Typical behaviour. Whenever the majority is frightened by a group of people or an individual, the stereotypical imagery pops out to dehumanize and mock. Only the names and races change, and people now recognize it for the BS it is. *yawn*

    I saw the “Obama as a mule” image as a play on “mulatto” and we ALL know what that means. :/

    This obviously was meant to offend and give this group attention. If you’re going to be a racist piece of shit, just own up to it.

  52. Winn wrote:

    @Chris,

    Preach. That is all.

  53. Insight from I.E. wrote:

    “I do believe that she might not have known those stereotypes; I didn’t know of them until I was 24. Like the area that I grew up in, there are areas of California with more Asian-Americans and Latinos than African-Americans, so it is possible that she was ignorant of this particular racist association.”

    The people who live where the Press Enterprise is circulated know these stereotypes. The only ignorance Fedele is guilty of is assuming she could get away with spreading that image further without being approached. Living in the I.E. I’ve overheard too many things that people claim as “ignorance” when called out on. The Fontana and Riverside area has an overabundance of people like Fedele which is a shame.

  54. Tim wrote:

    Chris, you and I agree more than we disagree, I didn’t go into as great of detail as you did. We agree that the Bush admin spends too much, but as far as tax cuts, are you going to cut taxes on people that don’t pay taxes? We also agree that it takes two to tango, I never said the mortgage companies weren’t at fault, the blame lies on both sides there. McCain was also one of the people that tried to point out a problem with the lending industry while Obama was trying to keep it going to let low income people own a peice of the american dream.
    Another point that’s getting lost here is that the market hit it’s all time high just a couple of years ago, so things weren’t bad for 6 years. There has been a democratic senate and house for the last two so I think there’s enough blame to go around. People only tend to focus on the here and now which is possibly why Bush got elected for his first term right after the dot com bubble burst.
    You and I also agree that it was trading in oil futures that was the beginning of this mess, but it was hard to impose regulations on because it was people’s retirement accounts that were getting fat trading on oil futures, something you don’t hear too much about.
    If it seems like I’m defending the right a little too much it’s because I’m seeing too much piling on without a lot of objectivity and I hate to see history being rewritten. I’m an independent who is a social liberal while being a fiscal conservative. I beleive in a balance of power to keep checks and balances. If Obama is elected you can throw that out the door along with fiscal responsibility. If we had a republican congress or senate, Obama would have a good shot at getting my vote, but a far left candidate with a blank check scares me.
    What’s really sad is that people are going for Obama based on the economy without doing any research into what are the consequences of his policies. I read the Wall Street Journal because I figure the best way to find out what will work for the economy is to learn from those that know. Article after article stating how Obama’s plan won’t work are in there day after day.
    You and I agree that all the tax cuts shouldn’t go to the big corporations, but the last tax cuts didn’t just go to them and if they expire, then you and I will be paying higher taxes. Obama says he won’t raise taxes, however, letting the current cuts expire is the same thing, but he’ll be able to argue semantics I guess.
    Again, you and I agree more than disagree and I thank you for articulating some of my points better than I did. One quick point I want to disagree on is the paying contractors 100K while a soldier makes half that. That 100k is actually a savings for the government over the course of a year, the govt. doesn’t have to supply housing, health care or equipment to those contractors and downsizing is VERY easy.

  55. Chris wrote:

    @Tim: A couple of things to take note of are that Obama plans to continue the Bush Tax Cuts for everyone except anyone making over $250,000. In fact, that where his “tax raises” would come from – restoring the tax percentage of those in the upper 5% tax bracket to pre-Bush levels.

    The whole McCain argument that Obama voted to raise taxes for people making $42k a year is based on Obama’s lack of support for making all the Bush cuts — even those for the wealthy — permanent instead of letting them expire.

    Second, I can see how someone who is on the far-right can claim Obama’s way out on the left side of issues. However, he’s more centrist than anything.

    Third, I wouldn’t rely on the WSJ for independent criticism on Obama’s economic policies. Seeing as how Obama’s policies would be giving less of a tax break to corporations and wealthy investors, I can see how the WSJ might be a little skewed towards the skepitcal.

    Don’t forget that the WSJ is also owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, the same man and company that own such fair and balanced media outlets as Fox News. I’m sure the WSJ has more of a stake in showing Obama’s economic policies in a bad light than they do reporting on them objectively.

  56. Jess wrote:

    @Tim–

    You do realize that (speaking of rewriting history) that some of the highest taxes we ever had in the US happened to coincide with huge growth as well? I am not saying they were the cause, just that they were not necessarily correlated the way right-wing economists seem to think.

    To give an example — the tax rates in the US were on the order 0f 80% for the top marginal rate in the 1950s. By the 1970s that had gone down to about 50-60% (depending on when you stop counting) and after 1970 they dropped further. Economic growth didn’t mark the Carter administration, as I recall.

    If there was a direct link between taxes and growth, then the 1950s would have been a period of the worst depression ever. It wasn’t.

    As to home ownership, the big thing that fueled the housing meltdown wasn’t just giving out loans. (As you would know, reading the WSJ). It was the change in the loan industry from one in which you make money by lending money into one in which you make money by generating loans. There is a huge difference.

    How did that happen? Two things. First, the deregulation of banks and brokerages. When Glass-Steagall was repealed, banks were allowed to make riskier investments (and their capital requirements were reduced). Phil Gramm was the author of that particular piece of legislation, though you are correct that a Democratic president signed it.

    The result? Banks sold the loans packaged as securities. That was okay, and it isn’t a bad thing in isolation. But it means that the bank no longer cares if you can pay the loan back. The old market “brake” on loaning out money –whether you will get it back — was gone.

    Of course, this creates a problem for the banks. They no longer make money on interest (which is a nice, steady income stream over years). They only could make money on the fees that went with generating loans.

    If you run out of people with good credit to loan to, and you only make money by generating loans, what do you think happens?

    Also, a certain famous fan of Ayn Rand — Greenspan, I believe his name was — believed that keeping interest rates low was the way to keep the economy growing. It’s not because he is evil or stupid, he’s just an old-school monetarist. That’s fine. But he kept rates at 2-3% — historic lows — which was below the average rate of house price inflation.

    Again, not entirely his fault. When everyone and his dog was offered a house loan, then that drives up the price of houses. Also fine. Until you realize that you are borrowing at 5-6% — the lowest rates in decades– and your house price rises by twice that. The incentive is to borrow an infinite amount.

    But of course, then comes the crash.

    All this was predicated on banks not being required to keep loans on the books.

    Now, lets compare what happens to institutions — like credit unions — that are prohibited from taking certain kinds of risk. Well, credit unions are fine. And they lend to people who are mostly poor. They are run as non-profits, but they are required to have a higher percentage of capital on hand than banks. And they are required to keep loans on the books, That means they will only loan you money if there is a good chance of getting it back.

    Lo and behold, borrowing costs are smaller and the credit unions haven’t come close to failure at all. (I think one has been liquidated for insolvency in the last 20 years). They managed to keep the lending going, and get the money back. And all those poor folk paid back at a higher rate than higher income people. (The default rate is <1%).

    So it seems to me that the problem is in fact regulation — the lack of it. Sometimes big banks — which we need to keep functioning — need to be protected from themselves. They are not evil or stupid, but if the incentives are set up to take dumb risks, then they will do it. Not rocket science, I don’t think.

  57. Tim wrote:

    Jess, you’re right on the money with the banking industry, but when you talk about the margins staying the same, you’d have to be pretty naive to think Obama’s not going to touch the lower end of that. There’s nothing in his voting history that would lead you to believe that. I’m going by what he’s done, not by what he’s saying, he’s backtracked on too many things during the campaign for me to take him at face value. His supposed tax cuts for the lower margins are in the form of tax credits. When 44% of those in the 95% don’t pay taxes where do you think it’s going to come from? It’s going to be applied to the payroll not income and that’s going to eat into social security, so what you have is someone who doesn’t pay taxes getting a rebate check along with money not going into social security. See the major flaw in this plan. It smacks of socialism, redistribution and that’s about as far left as you can go. You sound like a well educated guy, but I think you’ve bought into the hype too much. Obama’s voting history again would disagree with you.
    The Wall Street Journal is about the only source that will speak in enough depth to really get to the heart of the candidates plans. So to get to the heart of the plan you have to know the details. The USA Today just won’t cut it on that front. When my knee hurts, I don’t see a dentist, I go to my ortho. So when I want financial info I use the WSJ. What paper in this country isn’t biased, and you have to admit you’re not going to hear a bad word about Obama in the Washington Post.
    I’m as far to the center as I believe I can get, I’ve voted for both parties in the past and will continue to in the future. I’ve spent way more hours than I wish I had to to come to the conclusions I have and everything points to very few people right or left being farther away than Obama. Right now he’s saying anything people want to hear to get elected, but you have to look at what body of work there is to add to what he’s said and they just don’t add up. If you gave Joe Lieberman’s politics to the Obama persona I’d be first in line to vote for him. I was fooled once before when I voted for Mark Warner in VA. He ran on promises that he had no intentions of keeping and I won’t be betrayed like that again. I should have listened to what my gut and his history had to say. I won’t be making that mistake again when voting for senate this Nov.

  58. Sixfootwoman wrote:

    “”“I absolutely apologize to anyone who was offended. That clearly wasn’t my attempt.””

    Oh no, Ms. Fedele. It clearly was. And I think you meant to use the word ‘intent’. @@